Peters v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP., No. 27-CV-07-22514.

• Decision Date: 27 August 2008
• Docket Number: No. 27-CV-07-22514.
• Parties: Kristan Peters, Plaintiff, v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP., Zachary Carter, Defendants.
• Court: Minnesota District Court

Page 1

Kristan Peters, Plaintiff, v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP., Zachary Carter, Defendants.

No. 27-CV-07-22514.

District Court of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District, Hennepin County.

August 27, 2008,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE COMPENSATION CLAIM AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Gary Larson, Judge of District Court.

The above-entitled matter came on before the Honorable Gary Larson, Judge of Hennepin County District Court, on August 27, 2008, on Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on the Compensation Claim.

James Kaster, Esq., appeared for and on behalf of Plaintiff, Ms. Peters, and Elizabeth Brama, Esq., and Scott Davies, Esq., appeared for and on behalf of Defendants, Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Zachary Carter.

Based upon the files and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following:

ORDER

1. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Final Judgment on the Compensation Claim is DENIED.

2. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein.

MEMORANDUM

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 9, 2008, this Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Plaintiff's and Defendant's Cross Motions for Summary Judgment and to Dismiss. The Order granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims in Plaintiff's Complaint except: (1) breach of contract for "guaranteed" compensation; (2) tortious interference with prospective business relations; and (3) defamation. The Order denied Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendant's counterclaims for: (1) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) intentional misrepresentation.

Plaintiff's compensation claim is the subject of this motion. Plaintiff seeks direct entry of a final judgment with regard to all claims disposed of at summary judgment. There is some dispute as to Plaintiff's calculation of the amount of compensation owed. Plaintiff previously represented that she is due approximately $ 143,609 in compensation for the 2007 year. Plaintiff has since requested a greater amount.

Defendant apparently will move for summary judgment on all remaining claims at an October 15, 2008 summary judgment hearing.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Standard of review.

A judgment that adjudicates fewer than all of the claims in an action is immediately appealable if the district court makes an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and expressly directs the entry of judgment. Minn. R. Civ. P. 54.02; First Nat'l Bank of Windom v. Rosenkranz, 430 N.W.2d 267, 268 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). The district court has discretion on whether to make the express determination required for immediate review of a partial judgment. Id. (noting that district courts should authorize immediate appeals from partial judgments only when "substantial benefits to the parties in a particular case outweigh the general policy considerations against piecemeal review"). Absent this determination, a partial judgment is not appealable until a final judgment adjudicating all remaining claims in an action is entered. Id. A decision whether to make the express determination to allow immediate review of a partial judgment falls within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.

B. Judicial efficiency requires delay of final judgment on Plaintiff's compensation claim.

Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 54.02 authorizes entry of final judgment in a multiple claim suit where some claims are still pending when there is no just reason for delay. Rule 54.02 states:

When multiple claims for relief or multiple parties are involved in an action, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has emphasized that piecemeal review is not favored. Emme v. C.O.M.B., Inc., 418 N.W.2d 176, 178 (Minn. 1988); Krmpotich v. City of Duluth, 449 N.W.2d 507, 509 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). The rules of appellate procedure are designed to conserve judicial resources and to expedite trial proceedings. Id.

Appeals from partial judgments which do not adjudicate all claims can cause unnecessary delays and expense to the parties and burden the appellate courts with multiple appeals out of the same action, when issues could be more economically handled in a single appeal after entry of a final judgment adjudicating all remaining claims. Rosenkranz, 430 N.W.2d at 268. Only where substantial...